Note: Section 53a-189 contains two
ways that eavesdropping occurs, wiretapping and mechanical overhearing of a
conversation, which are defined in § 53a-187. This instruction is for
mechanical overhearing of a conversation. See also
Illegal Wiretapping, Instruction 10.8-3.

The defendant is charged [in count __]
with eavesdropping. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part
as follows:

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Eavesdropping by
mechanical deviceThe first element is that the
defendant unlawfully listened in on or recorded a conversation or discussion, at
which (he/she) was not present,
by means of any mechanical instrument, device or equipment. "Unlawfully" means
not specifically authorized by law.

Element 2 - Without consentThe second element is that the
defendant did not have the consent of either party to the conversation. If
(he/she) received permission from one of the parties to the conversation to
listen in on the conversation, then (he/she) cannot be found guilty of
eavesdropping. A person does an act "without consent of another person" when
(he/she) lacks such other person's agreement or assent to engage in the act.

Element 3 - IntentThe third element is that the
defendant intended to listen in on the conversation. If the overhearing is
unintentional, then (he/she) cannot be found guilty of eavesdropping. To be
guilty of the offense of eavesdropping, there must be a deliberate and wilful
intention to overhear the conversation. A person acts "intentionally"
with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such
result. <See
Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant unlawfully listened in on a
conversation or discussion by some mechanical means, 2) (he/she) did not have
the consent of either party to the conversation or discussion, and 3) (he/she)
intended to listen in on it.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
eavesdropping, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if
you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.